I read a rather startling claim yesterday- that around 1700AD, 1 in 10 women in London was a prostitute.

At first I just scoffed- I didn't see any way in which an economy at that time could support such a vast sex industry. However I got to thinking about Samuel Pepys' diary- he certainly knew a lot of women willing to fiddle around occasionally, often to advance their husband's career prospects. Perhaps the part-timer who just turns the occasional trick boosts that 1-in-10 claim considerably.

So just how important was a sex industry to historic economies? In which societies was it most prominent?

Heterae in Athens are a well known example. They were around at the wine drinking parties and could provide a more sophisticated and leisured companionship for the adult male citizen, something completely different from his relationship to his wife who was at home.

Sexuality in Ancient Greece is an interesting subject.

I'm about to paraphrase Camille Paglia, so yell at her if you disagree.

Freedom in sexuality occurs in society whenever the middle class (or the majority of individuals) actually have enough leisure time to indulge in sexual pursuits. This leisure time is a result of general underlying wealth of the society as a whole. Thus, the most notable times of *public* homosexuality in history occur in Athenian Greece, Renaissance Italy, Victorian England, and modern-day America. Prostitution also is prevalent in these societies, and in fact usually emerge before the homosexuality.

The other requirement, of course, is urbanization. This is due to two things: 1) efficiency--i.e. a prostitute can get more business in a city than cruising the farms; and 2) free time and money. Prostitution doesn't prosper where farmers work sunrise to sunset and barter with other farmers for goods.

I read a rather startling claim yesterday- that around 1700AD, 1 in 10 women in London was a prostitute...
Well, assume you have as many men as women. Not everyone get's married, especially since a lot of the men are away "civilizing the wogs". If the women that's left can't find any other work, they may well end up on the street.

Yes, that was quite pararectal. ;)

I would think cities have much more prostitution (per capita) than rural areas. Perhaps ten percent of London's women were prostitutes, but if you even it out for the entire country, I suspect the percentage would even out.

An intersting aspect of this is the status of prostitutes as "public women", which usually has worked in reverse making almost all women appearing in public a form of prostitutes.

Regardless if you've been an unchapperoned woman walking the streets of ancient Athens, 18th c. London or 19th c. Stockholm alone, the assumption of everyone around you would be that "there goes a prostitute".
Women trying that had to expect lewd propositions by strange men. And protesting you decency was useless, since simply the fact that you were walking there was an announcement that anyone could have you.

Looking at possible urban public career alternatives for women prior to the 20th c., they were all more or less "disreprutable" and not to be contemplated by decent women-folk, the reason being that by inference all women appearing in public were a kind of prostitute. "Actress", as in "as the actress said to the bishop", for instance.;)

Well, assume you have as many men as women. Not everyone get's married, especially since a lot of the men are away "civilizing the wogs". If the women that's left can't find any other work, they may well end up on the street.
It rather worked like this:
If you're a man living in Christian Europe, you can't consider marriage until you can guarantee that you're in such a financial position that you can care for a wife and family.
Effect in the 18th and 19th c.: Late marriages, with men in their fifties bedding teenage brides.

And this is especially pronounced in the cities, within the professional middle class on the rise.

So what do all these men do in the three decades or so of sexual activity they can expect to enjoy before experiencing marital bliss? Why, occasionally find a friendly prostitute of course.

Of course these prostitutes never came from the upper strata of society. Instead the sisters of the professional middle class men lived with their parents, brothers, distant relations etc. And that's how the stereotype of the Spinster appeared, They were the middle class women, or even noble women (impoverished German nobility for example), who couldn't work, couldn't marry within their station, and even if they did wouldn't keep the family name alive. So they got salted away doing needle work and playing the piano forte for all of their sad and reduced little lives.

Women of the lower classes appearing in public OTOH could all be considered available. That's how a privilege society works. There really isn't much you can pit against your overly friendly local baron. You'd get payed if you were lucky. It's been said that all women you could meet in the streets of London's East End in the 19th c. could be had for a price.
And servants were just generally available. The youngest servant woman had to expect to make herself availble to the employer as a matter of routine. (That's how my maternal great-grandfahter was conceived.)

I read a rather startling claim yesterday- that around 1700AD, 1 in 10 women in London was a prostitute.

At first I just scoffed- I didn't see any way in which an economy at that time could support such a vast sex industry. However I got to thinking about Samuel Pepys' diary- he certainly knew a lot of women willing to fiddle around occasionally, often to advance their husband's career prospects. Perhaps the part-timer who just turns the occasional trick boosts that 1-in-10 claim considerably.

So just how important was a sex industry to historic economies? In which societies was it most prominent?

Prostitution existed before then as well, though. I'd recommend reading up on medieval towns and villages to get an idea of it's existence.

Well, assume you have as many men as women. Not everyone get's married, especially since a lot of the men are away "civilizing the wogs".

There wasn't a great deal of that happening in 1700.

I'd agree that "part timers" or those who dabbled in it once or twice had to count towards that figure. What I'd like to know is, how was that 1-in-10 number arrived at in the first place? It's not like there would have been any sociologists around 1700 who had the liberty to go around surveying women to find out if they'd ever taken money for sex.

In historic China, it doesn't seem that prevalent. Though there's a largish courtesan class (much like geisha in Japan), going by the historical dramas today. :ack:

Also, Chinese agriculture is very productive (compared with, say, medieval Europe) - no need to 'hold' back. And Chinese tradition expects you to get married early and produce as many kids as possible as your duty to the ancestor and clan, so... Plus Chinese social norms allow the taking of concubines (the extreme example is the Imperial Harem).

Prostitution existed before then as well, though. I'd recommend reading up on medieval towns and villages to get an idea of it's existence.

Missed this one. Yes, funnily enough I was aware that prostitution was not an invention of the early 18th century. Try checking out some of my articles published here.

Breaking news- there's a forthcoming BBC documentary ("The Harlot's Handbook") that appears to back up the "1 in 10" claim, with the inference that it applies to career prostitutes.

I'm sorry. I'd love it to be true, but that just defies logic. How could the local economy support that level of prostitution? It would require a level of widespread disposable income that I'd struggle to believe existed.

Let's assume that a hooker needed just two clients a day to get by (and I'd reckon that figure was on the low side). This would mean the average man of every age, status and income grouping was paying for sex every five days- and in doing so paying 7% of the average hooker's weekly income each 5 days.

Missed this one. Yes, funnily enough I was aware that prostitution was not an invention of the early 18th century. Try checking out some of my articles published here.

Hey, my comment was a quick and friendly idea, I didn't mean to cause any offence. I don't browse here that often, don't worry ;) I'm presently an undergraduate in History at University, working towards my degree, so I like to talk about stuff I've read up on and wrote about. You seem a bit offended by what I said, sorry if that's the case :)

I read a rather startling claim yesterday- that around 1700AD, 1 in 10 women in London was a prostitute.

At first I just scoffed- I didn't see any way in which an economy at that time could support such a vast sex industry. However I got to thinking about Samuel Pepys' diary- he certainly knew a lot of women willing to fiddle around occasionally, often to advance their husband's career prospects. Perhaps the part-timer who just turns the occasional trick boosts that 1-in-10 claim considerably.

So just how important was a sex industry to historic economies? In which societies was it most prominent?

It's not called the "world's oldest profession" for nothing, because until very recently, it was legal. In the US, prostitution wasn't banned until about 1910.

The reason I think prostitution could be as common as cited was because there were really no other outlets for sex for a man. A "proper" woman was not supposed to have sex with anyone but her husband. This left a huge market open for women who were willing to make a quick buck and who weren't encumbered by such moralisms. Today, the sex industry, while thriving, is probably not as widespread because men are allowed to sleep with their girlfriends.

It is legal, as far as I know, in most of Europe. It's certainly legal in Britain. However, the law is a bit muddled, since "soliciting" is illegal, and so is operating an establishment on the basis of immorality (or some equally meaningless drivel). Which is why there are many calls for the law to be spruced up a bit to remove the grey areas and maybe give a bit of protection to prostitutes, who are vulnerable enough as it is.

I still refuse to believe the economy in 1700 could have supported 10% of the female population employed (wholly or largely) in a horizontal context.

10% might not be over the top for the urban population.

But 90% of the common folk would still be living in the countryside, and prostitution would be relatively much more rare.

A general 10% of all females, in the entire population, working on their backs full time according to modern ideas about the specilisation and professionalisation of labour, hardly.

A general 10% of all females being slotted into the category of "public women" of one kind or another, possibly.

There might be just as much prostitution going on in the countryside, but just done by fewer prostitutes. For example, I used to live in a small town in the mountains of New Zealand. There was a single prostitute who visited the town every so often, since she - er - serviced quite a large area. Kind of like a flying doctor. So if that's typical, then the difference between rural and urban negotiable affection is much like the difference between most services in the two areas - available in both, but far more choice and convenience in the city.

I am in agreement with Verbose. 10% seems to me to be a very high figure. Does anyone have any figures for the number of persons in other professions that might possibly offer a comparison?

I read once about Rome having similar figures in late 15th century. 10-20% of women were prostitutes or courtesans.

It reminds me of Churchill who had a discussion with a lady whose name I've forgotten.
Churchill: Would you slept with me for one million pounds?
The lady: What?! Well... One million pounds... It's a lot... Yes I think so.
Churchill: Would you slept with me for 10 pounds?
The lady: What? What are you taking me for?
Churchill: We already established that, now we are just discussing the price.

Count me in as someone else who thinks that 10% is way too high. This number would not just be applied to unmarried women of a certain age, but 10% of all women, regardless of age or marital status. So if 10% of all women were prostitutes, that would be like 50% of unmarried women under 50 or something like that (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air, but you get the idea) in London were full-time prostitutes. Sorry, I just don't quite see it.

If an historian comes up with a statement "10-20% of females in X were prostitutes" and happens to have some sources in his hands, it's still wise to put things in to perspective.

Could be true because:

+ prostitution has not been that socially doubtful during certain periods and in some places. For example when Finland was under Swedish rule it was seen appropriate, that if a Finnish farmer houses a Swedish noble or gentleman, he should offer services of his daughter or wife for the night. This rule was of course bent, but sometimes it was enforced by the Swedish rulers.
+ there has always been a market for prostitutes
+ compared to most jobs available for an uneducated woman from a poor family, prostitution has been quite lucrative, has been so and still is - of course main income goes to organized crime etc. these days

Could be false because:

- source or sources the historian has may just lie:
1: the church, for example, may have driven it's own political agenda by claiming dramatically "Our city is filled with PROSTITUTES and unless we do something about it and church gets more money... we are... d-o-O-O-M-E-D!!!
2: if a politician (especially British) writes his memoirs and states so, it may well be because 10-20% of his acquintances were actually prostitutes

- the historian may exaggerate to improve his/her sale. There's nothing more boring than to spend few years researching history of a society and then go: "Yeah, I had pretty much the same results than 20 historians did from the same subject"

- the historian may have his/her own political agenda. In this case for example feminist historian could enforce her statement "all men are and have always been pigs"


So, I got three +s and three -s. May be true? I don't know. I keep it in mind as a statement as most of the stuff I read.

apparently in ancient rome (if it hasn't already been mentioned) there was a brothel on nearly every street corner where the sex would cost the same amount of money as a loaf of bread.

Damn, it doesn't cost the same as a loaf of bread these days.

Did I just say that out loud...?

Sugar Daddies.

In line with Camille Paglia's analysis above, Britain saw a significant rise in the middle class and thus disposable incomes circa 1700. With new trading routes being set up at this time, thus more new luxuries for them to quaff, it was a dizzying consumer merry-go-round.

Sugar being the prime luxury example. Somewhere around here I've posted the figures for sugar imports into Britain and the resulting revenues flow from the same around the 1750s. Sugar and its trade represented something like 20% of revenues flowing into the British treasury at this time*. The figures from a century early are virtually incomparable. The uptake was extreme. A real mad fad, if ever there was one. It's much the same for the rest of western Europe.

Such a sweet tooth. Such new found wealth. Such new found pasttimes. I think Paglia has well identified the reasons behind the increased levels of prostitution and its prominence in Britain during these times.


*Look to a speech Pitt the Younger made, when PM, declaring that the colonies in North America were reaping poor yields when compared to the Caribbean, and thus not much attention to independence cries should be paid. (He was railing against his father's legacy in saying so).